The Tribune

By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

A MAN on bail charged with kidnapping, rape, and two murders, presented a recusal motion in court without the support of legal counsel, accusing the judge of bias.

Trevon Stevens claimed that Justice Franklyn Williams had already formed an opinion about his guilt before the trial had even begun.

He pointed to what he described as a prejudicial statement made by the judge to a court clerk, when Justice Williams allegedly referred to Stevens as having killed his girlfriend and her child without using the word “alleged.”

He argued that this comment –– along with a reference to his previous conviction for causing grievous harm to a former girlfriend –– demonstrated a clear bias.

In his application, he argued that his right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 20 of the Bahamian Constitution, was being infringed upon due to what he described as “ostensible bias” by Justice Williams.

He pointed to the judge’s past remarks about him during a bail hearing, when Justice Williams had stated that Stevens was a “threat to society, and in particular, to females.” He also criticised the judge for citing his prior conviction for violence against a female as a reason for denying bail, drawing parallels to the charges in the current case.

Justice Williams, however, dismissed the recusal motion, stating that Stevens’ claims did not meet the threshold for judicial bias. The judge noted that remarks made during proceedings, particularly in the context of bail hearings, were not improper and were within the scope of the judge’s role in assessing the risk to public safety.

Referring to legal precedent, Justice Williams emphasised that judges are presumed impartial, and that accusations of bias must be supported by clear evidence of prejudgment.

In his ruling, the judge reminded Stevens of his presumption of innocence, as enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution, and outlined that judicial remarks made in the course of bail hearings or other pre-trial matters did not automatically indicate bias.

He further clarified that his previous statements regarding Stevens’ past convictions were made in the context of assessing bail and not as an indication of guilt in the current case.

Ultimately, Justice Williams struck out the motion, ruling that there was no legitimate basis for recusal, and ordered that Stevens’ trial would proceed as scheduled. The case, set for May 2025, will continue under the oversight of the judge.